Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Raj) 1829

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J.
Dinesh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1404/2021
Decided On : 30-09-2021

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Tarun Kumar Mishra, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahala, P.P, for the Respondent

The court established that in bail considerations, the voluntary actions of the prosecutrix and the absence of criminal antecedents of the accused are significant factors that can influence the decision to grant bail.

Headnote:
BAIL - SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT - The court considered the compliance with Section 15A(3) of the Act and the circumstances surrounding the appellant's case, including the prosecutrix's age, her voluntary actions, and the absence of criminal antecedents, ultimately deciding to grant bail while emphasizing the importance of personal bonds and compliance with legal conditions.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Dinesh, was implicated in a criminal case involving serious charges under the IPC and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecutrix, a 29-year-old married woman with five children, claimed to have gone with the appellant voluntarily and stayed with him for over two months.
Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the nature of the allegations, the prosecutrix's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the appellant's length of custody, and his lack of prior criminal history. It found sufficient grounds to grant bail without commenting on the case's merits.
Issues: Whether the appellant should be granted bail considering the nature of the allegations, the prosecutrix's statements, and the appellant's background.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the circumstances, including the prosecutrix's voluntary actions and the appellant's clean record, warranted the granting of bail, emphasizing the need for personal bonds and compliance with legal stipulations.
Result: The appeal was allowed, the previous order denying bail was quashed, and the appellant was directed to be released on bail upon fulfilling specified conditions.

JUDGMENT

Learned Public Prosecutor apprises this Court that compliance of Section 15A(3) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act of 1989') has been made.

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes & the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed in connection with FIR No.0155/2021 registered at Police Station Devli, District Tonk for the offence under Section(s) 366, 379 & 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989 and later on for the offence under Section(s) 366, 379 & 376(2)(N) IPC and under Section(s) 3(1)(W)(i)(ii) & 3(2)(V) of the Act of 1989.

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that he has falsely been implicated in this case wherein the prosecutrix is a major married lady of 29 years of age with 5 children. Drawing attention of this Court towards her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., learned counsel submitted that she has gone with the appellant on her own volition, has travelled at number of places through public transport, has stayed with him in rented premises for more than two months without raising any alarm. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant is in custody since 08.06.2021, charge sheet has been filed, trial of the case will take time, he has no criminal antecedents and prayed for his release on bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal. Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, the nature of allegation against him, his length of custody, filing of charge sheet, material contained therein especially the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and absence of criminal antecedents; but, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the appellant on bail.

The order dated 03.09.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Tonk (Rajasthan) is quashed and set-aside and this appeal is accordingly allowed. It is directed that accused appellant Dinesh S/o Prahlad shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so and shall comply with all the conditions laid down under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document